A simulation model for thermal performance

prediction of a coal-fired power plant

..............................................................................................................................................................
1 1 2* 3
Ravinder Kumar , Ravindra Jilte , Mohammad H. Ahmadi and Rajneesh Kaushal
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara,
Punjab 144411, India; 2Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Shahrood University of
Technology, Shahrood 3619995161, Iran; 3Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana 136119, India
.............................................................................................................................................
Abstract
This study deals with the simulation modeling of a 250 MW capacity coal-based power plant at different
load conditions. The plant under study is subcritical, reheating and regenerative type situated in northern
part of India. At present, computer-based programming and advanced software used in simulation, mod-
eling and optimization used in process industries playing an important role. The present work related
with the semi-empirical modeling for thermal performance analysis of a coal-fired power plant. The
model basically includes the mass, energy balance equations. A typical thermodynamic property relation
with empirical correlations using steam bled pressure extracted from turbine at various points in plant
has been used. The necessary data collected from plant and model are applied in a general programming
form for plant analysis. The process-based simulation model with the integration of steam generator, tur-
bine, pump, condenser and feedwater heaters in the plant has been successfully run using the MATLAB
calculation tool. The validation of the model has been done by comparing overall plant efficiency, coal
consumption rate and mass flow rate of steam at various load conditions for 250 MW capacity plant
under operating conditions. The results achieved through simulation model are found to be satisfactory.
It is expected that this simulation model will help out to those engineers and researchers who are dealing
with the improvement of design, analysis and optimization of coal-fired power plant.

Keywords: thermodynamic modeling; thermal power plant; plant efficiency; steam turbine; computa-
tional algorithm
*Corresponding author:
mohammadhosein. Received 13 August 2018; revised 16 November 2018; editorial decision 13 December 2018; accepted 19
ahmadi@gmail.com December 2018
................................................................................................................................................................................

1 INTRODUCTION
Today’s electric energy is going to prove a better option for the
development of any country and it seems to be impossible to
leave without it. The people are totally dependent on electricity
for their daily needs in developing as well as in developed coun-
try. Coal is the main source of electricity generation in fossil
fuel based power plants. The use of coal in coal-fired power
plant (CFPP) causes raise in global temperature due to green-
house gases emission responsible for global warming across the
globe [1, 2]. It also has an adverse impact on the health of
human being. Also, a huge amount of water is required for
CFPP and the lack of freshwater resources to meet this demand
is another big problem in many parts of the world [3]. The
entire world is facing energy-related issues today and searching
the various options to resolve it as soon as possible. The uncon-
trollable population of any nation making it difficult to fulfill
their daily energy demand. Due to population growth and
improvement in advance technology, energy is going to be con-
sumed at a faster rate [4]. Moreover, a major amount of energy
is going to be consumed to run various project in different
fields necessary for a nation development. Energy systems play
an important role in any nation economy. To fulfill this need,
in a number of power plants are working in a continue manner
and in a number of researchers are trying to optimize these
various power plants by using new advanced technology to

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which per-
mits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
doi:10.1093/ijlct/cty059 Advance Access Publication 12 February 2019 122
 A simulation model for thermal performance prediction

fulfill their present countrymen needs. Coal-fired power plants
are playing a crucial role in this area. Its working is to convert
coal stored energy to usable electricity. Coal-based power plants
contribute total 80% of power requirements to world and
remaining demand is contributed by other sources of power
[5]. Today’s world energy crisis and environmental changes are
going to provide various opportunities to search out various
energy efficient advanced technologies [6]. Researchers are
applying their efforts to improve the efficiency of the power
plant. A new approach for feedwater heater train simulation to
increase overall plant efficiency in a CFPP was designed and
suggested [17, 18]. The incorporation of solar energy with power
plants is also playing an important role nowadays [19]. Ahmadi
et al. [20] proposed a novel system to recover the wasted heat
and water along with exergy and economic analyses in thermal
power plant. India’s electricity sector itself also uses in majority
the total coal produced in country. In a number of CFPP’s are
using subcritical steam parameters in majority and only a couple
of plants are utilizing supercritical steam parameters in India.
Thermal power plants performance can be evaluated all the way
through energetic performance criterion, which is electrical
power and thermal effectiveness. Energy is an essential tool for

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

fruitful results were obtained [5–7]. In a number of researcher
have focused their research on physical and chemical processes
taking place in boiler combustion chamber to enhance boiler as
well as plant efficiency in thermal power plants [8–12]. A sim-
plified simulation model was proposed to predict the perform-
ance of a circulating fluidized bed boiler under varying loads
conditions [13]. Rankine cycle power plant efficiency can be
increased using a combined cycle [13, 14]. Also a supercritical
boiler model was compared using fuzzy-neural network and
recursive least squares method to observeboiler efficiency [15].
A nonlinear mathematical model to characterize the transient
dynamics at various points for a steam turbine was proposed
[16]. Mathematical programming algorithms were imported
in software to optimize overall CFPP efficiency [15, 16].
Thermodynamic optimization of gas turbine based plants is also
the development of present as well as future economy of a
nation. The plant efficiency can be improved using modification
in plant configuration or with optimization in plant operating
conditions. So, in present study simulation model has been pro-
posed to see the effect of various parameters on plant thermal
performance.
2 POWER PLANT CYCLE DESCRIPTION
This paper presents simulation modeling of a subcritical CFPP
of 250 MW capacity situated in North India. The plant with all
components detail is shown in Figure 1. In steam generator
(SG), steam is generated through the chemically treated water
circulation all around water tube walls of SG furnace. Superheater

d 2 B C
d
d3
C B B C C B B C C B
1
1 1
HPT IP LPT LPT
G
SH

1 1
1 1
RH
2
SG 3
4
5
6
7
9

COND 9a
2
y1 K y3 y4 y5 y6 C
y2 Z1
1
10a 10b JNC
Z1 8
19 0
B 16
2 1 1 1
CP
2 2 2 2 P 2 1 DC 1
HPH- HPH- LPH-1 LPH- LPH- GSC J
8 2 2 2 DR
1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1
y1 y1 + y1 y4 y4 + y5 y4 + y5 + y6

Figure 1. Steam turbine cycle based coal-fired power plant 250 MW.

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134 123

R. Kumar et al.

1a 1d
Start

1 1b,1c
2
28
26 27 3 Input data:
25 o Coal specimen data
24 23
4 o Plant capacity, Plant power output
22
T o Properties of working fluid
21 20
5
19 17

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

16 18 6 Thermal performance modeling
7
10 9
Steam generator efficiency Steam cycle calculations:
S for various coal specimens
o Mass fraction of each stream
Figure 2. Temperature-entropy (T-s) diagram of plant. o Enthalpy of each stream

Steam turbine calculations: Pump work Heat rejected

(SH) increases the temperature of steam from SG up to 537°C
and then it enters into high pressure turbine (HPT). After doing
useful work in HPT steam enters in reheater (RH) to increase
steam temperature from 344°C to 537°C and then enters in inter-
mediate pressure turbine (IPT). Also, some part of bled steam is
allowed to condense in various feedwater heaters as well. After
that, the balance steam enters in the low pressure turbine at a tem-
perature of 301°C and finally this bled steam is collected at four
stages (see Figure 1), while last bled steam is introduced in the
condenser unit. At the exit of condensate extraction pump (CP)
condensate enters in series of feedwater heaters. In low pressure hea-
ters, feedwater is heated up by the steam extracted from the turbines.
The water leaving low pressure heaters enters the deaerator. Boiler
feed pump ejects this water into high pressure heaters. In high pres-
sure heaters, feedwater is heated up again. Finally, it enters in Steam
generator at a higher temperature passing through economizer.
Temperature-entropy (T-s) diagram of plant is shown in Figure 2.
3 THERMODYNAMIC MODELING
In this paper, the main focus is on the simulation modeling
along with the integration of all necessary components respon-
sible for power plant working (see Figure 3). So, mathematical
modeling of each plant component using empirical equations related
to mass and energy balance is represented in this work. The
extracted bled steam pressure from turbine to feedwater heaters
has been also used. In this analysis, the input and output values
of the plant components are determined using the measured or
calculated thermodynamic variables such as enthalpy, pressure,
temperature, entropy, mass flow rate and quality.
3.1 Steam generator
The function of the steam generator (Boiler) is to generate the
steam of desired quality. Generally two methods are used for
in condenser
o Work output HPT
Turbine net
o Work output IPT work output
o Work output LPT
Plant performance analysis:
o Coal consumption
o Steam mass flow
o Plant efficiency
Figure 3. Computational algorithm of plant simulation model.
the evaluation of SG efficiency namely direct and indirect
method. In this work, indirect method has been adopted for the
evaluation of SG efficiency (see Table 1). Four coal samples
have been chosen from the plant (see Table 2) to see their
impact on SG as well as on plant efficiency.
Radiation and convection loss is taken as 0.21% [21]. Energy
and mass balance equations used for other plant components
used is shown in Table 3. Working fluid properties modeling
can be easily obtained [22, 23].
3.2 Feedwater heaters and condensers
For formulation, feedwaters are considered to be adiabatic. The
entry temperature difference (ETD) and terminal temperature
difference (TTD), it is also assumed to be non-zero and con-
stant quantity for each feedwater heater irrespective to change
in power output. Pressure drop across the feedwater heaters is
assumed to be negligible.

124 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134

 A simulation model for thermal performance prediction

Table 1. Steam generator efficiency in plant using losses method.

Steam generator loss Expression Unit

Loss due to dry flue gas (L1) 100 C S kJ/kg of fuel

[ 12 (CO ( + 267 − Ca)] 30.6 (Tf −Ta) (1)
2 + CO ) 100
Loss due to wet flue gas (L2) M + 9H kJ/kg of fuel
( 100 )[1.88 (Tf − 25 ) + 2442 + 4.2 (25 − Ta )] (2)
Heat loss due to moisture present in fuel (L3) L 2 − (CoalGCV − CoalNCV ) (12) kJ/kg of fuel
Heat loss due to moisture present in air (L4) 1.88ma c p (Tf −Ta) (3) kJ/kg of fuel
Unburnt gas loss (L5) CO C S kJ/kg of fuel
[ (CO ( + − Ca)] 23717 (4)
2 + CO ) 100 267
Radiation and convection loss (L6) 0.21 %
5
Steam generator efficiency (ηb ) [100 − (∑i = 1 Li × 100/CoalGCV ) − L 6] (5) %

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

3.034N C S
Here, actual mass of air supplied per kg of coal(ma) [ (CO ( + − Ca)] (6)
2 + CO ) 100 267

Table 2. Proximate and ultimate analysis of various coal samples (*).

Proximate analysis Ultimate analysis

Coal Moisture Volatile Ash Fixed Oxygen (O) Sulfur (S) Carbon (C) Hydrogen (H) Nitrogen (N) CoalGCV
specimen content (M) matter (VM) content (A) carbon (FC) in % in % in % in % in % (kJ/kg)

Coal 9.7 25.7 27.0 37.6 7.07 0.60 48.46 3.44 1.03 4530
specimen-1
Coal 8.1 20.7 36.0 35.2 4.27 0.51 43.51 3.03 0.98 3960
specimen-2
Coal 6.5 24.5 41.3 27.7 6.68 0.55 37.15 2.83 0.86 3520
specimen-3
Coal 7.1 20.4 48.9 23.6 5.55 0.24 30.82 1.90 0.60 2670
specimen-4

*Data collected from plant of coal specimen.

Table 3. Energy and mass balance equations used in plant.

. . . .
Mass balance equation ∑ yin = ∑ yout (7) Power consumed by pumps yin (hout − hin)
Wp = ηp
(10)
Energy balance equation . . . . . .
Q − W = ∑ yi (hout , i − hin, i ) (8) Net electrical power output WNet = ∑ WT − ∑ WP (11)
. .
Turbine work output WT = y Δh Where, Δh = hin − hout (9)

3.2.1 High pressure feedwater heater (HPH-1) Mathematical modeling comprises of energy and mass bal-
The schematic diagram of HPH-1, which corresponds to three ance for HPH-1 with respect to the unit feedwater flow rate
zones including desuperheating, condensing and drain-cooling entering into the heater and ‘i’ = 1 as shown in Figure 5.
zone (the extracted steam upon condensation gets subcooled, Energy balance:
which needs to be drain out using a drain cooler, DC) has been
shown in Figure 4. HPH-1 receives superheated steam bled from yi × hs (i) + 1 × hf (i + 1) = 1 × hf (i) + yi × hc (i) (12)
the turbine at state 1, the steam is first desuperheated, then con-
densed and finally subcooled at state 27, whereas the feedwater yi = (hf (i) − hf (i + 1) ) / (hs (i) − hc (i) ) (13)
gets heated from state 26 to 28. Since, the feedwater heater is a
closed type heat exchanger with finite surface area; the feedwater where
temperature usually differs from the condensing temperature of
the extraction stream. Since the information of complete geom- hf (i) = h(i) l − TTD × Cpw (14)
etry of feedwater heaters (heat exchangers) was not available, in
such situation, two parameters were defined for each unit namely hc (i) = hf (i + 1) + ETD × Cpw (15)
TTD and ETD, respectively. TTD is defined as the difference
between saturated temperature of the bled stream and exit water Here ‘y’ is the fractional mass flow with total steam flow from
temperature, while ETD is defined as the difference between steam generator. Cpw is specific heat capacity of working fluid.
saturated temperature of bled steam and inlet water temperature. TTD and ETD are terminal and ETD of feedwater heaters. The

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134 125

R. Kumar et al.

Steam Table 4. Terminal temperature and ETD of feedwater heaters.

Condenser Drain cooler Feedwater heaters ETD TTD
FW C FW
DS DC LPH-1 5.0 6.0
LPH-2 4.0 2.0
Desuperheater LPH-3 6.0 5.0
1 hs(i) Condensate HPH-1 3.0 6.0
h(i)g Bled steam h(i)l HPH-2 4.0 5.0

28 h(i)lg
hf(i) 27
hc(i)
Table 5. Bled steam pressure (bar) from turbine to feedwater heaters at

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

various points in design conditions.
T FW
hf(i+1) Sr. no. MW P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
26
1 100 16.86 7.29 3.12 1.099 0.423 0.19
2 125 20.49 8.74 3.74 1.316 0.509 0.231
DC 3 150 24.9 10.5 4.26 1.497 0.583 0.264
DS C
4 175 28.52 11.99 4.86 1.703 0.665 0.297
5 200 32.2 13.51 5.47 1.911 0.474 0.328
Length (L) 6 250 39.67 16.57 6.68 2.332 0.911 0.385

Figure 4. Temperature–length diagram for HPH-1.

Table 6. Constants obtained through the curve fitting of bled steam
extraction pressure.

yi , h s(i) Pressure m N

P1 0.152 1.725
P2 0.062 1.086
1, h f(i) 1, hf(i+1) P3 0.023 0.744
P4 0.008 0.279
P5 0.002 0.129
P6 0.001 0.067

yi , hc(i)
then condensed and finally subcooled at state 23, whereas the
Figure 5. Energy balance diagram for high pressure heater (HPH-1). feedwater gets heated from state 25 to 26 (refer Figure 6).
In the same manner for HPH-2, the subscript ‘i’ is fixed at 2,
Energy balance:
data of TTD and ETD for each feedwater heaters are listed in
Table 4. yi × hs (i) + 1 × hf (i + 1) + yi − 1 × hc (i − 1)
The bleeding steam pressure extracted from turbine to feed- = 1 × hf (i) + ( yi + yi − 1) × hc (i) (17)
water heaters at various points (see Table 5) is given by
equation below yi = (hf (i) − hf (i + 1) ) / (hs (i) − hc (i) )
+ yi − 1 ((hc (i) − hc (i − 1) ) / (hs (i) − hc (i) )) (18)
pi = mi MW + ni (16)
where

The constants values in equation (16) are given (see Table 6). hf (i) = h(i) l − TTD × Cpw (19)
The values of these constants are obtained through the curve fit-
ting of bled steam extraction pressure from turbine to feedwater hc (i) = hf (i + 1) + ETD × Cpw (20)
heaters at various points in cycle.

3.2.2 High pressure feedwater heater (HPH-2)
Physically, HPH-2 is similar to HPH-1, except it receives one
additional steam bled of condensate leaving from HPH-1 as
shown in Figure 6. Heater receives superheated steam bled
from the turbine at state 2, the steam is first desuperheated,
3.2.3 Deaerator
Deaerator (DR) is open type heater, the extracted steam bled is
allowed to mix with feedwater and both leave at common tem-
perature at the outlet of the heater (see Figure 7).
Similarly, for Deaerator (DR), the subscript ‘i’ is fixed at 3,
Energy balance

126 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134

 A simulation model for thermal performance prediction

yi , hs(i) 3
((1+z1) – ∑ yk), hf(i)
k=1

3
⎡ ((1+yz ) – ∑ yk)⎡ , hf(i+1)
⎡
3
((1+yz1) – ∑ yk), hf(i+1)
1
1, h f(i) 1, h f(i+1) k=1 k=1

yi + yi–1, hc(i)
yi–1, hc(i–1)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

yi , hc(i)
Figure 6. Energy balance diagram for HPH-2.
Figure 8. Energy balance diagram for LPH-1.

yi , hs(i)
3
((1+z1) – ∑ yk), h f(i)
1
(1+yz1) – ∑ yk
k=1 k=1
1 + yz1, h f(i) 3 3
((1+yz1) – ∑ yk), hf(i+1) ((1+yz1) – ∑ yk), hf(i+1)
k=1 k=1

yi–1 + yi–2 , hc(i–1)

yi–1, h f(i–1) yi + yi–1 , hc(i)

Figure 7. Energy balance diagram for Deaerator (DR).

Figure 9. Energy balance diagram for LPH-2.

⎛ 3 ⎞
yi × hs (i) + ( yi − 1 + yi − 2) × hc (i − 1) + ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟
⎝ k= 1 ⎠ ⎛ 3 ⎞
× hf (i + 1) = (1 + yz1) × hf (i) (21) yi × (hs (i) − hc (i) ) = ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk⎟⎟ × (hf (i) − hf (i+1) )
⎝ k=1 ⎠
(25)
yi × hs (i ) + ( yi − 1 + yi − 2) × hc (i − 1) + (1 + yz1) × h f (i + 1)
= (1 + yz1) × h f (i ) + yi × h f (i + 1) + ( yi − 1 + yi − 2) × h f (i + 1) (22) ⎛⎛ 3 ⎞ ⎞
yi = ⎜⎜ ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk⎟⎟ × (hf (i) − hf (i+1) )) / (hs (i) − hc (i) ⎟⎟
⎝⎝ k=1 ⎠ ⎠
yi = ((1 + yz1) × (h f (i) − h f (i + 1) ) / (hs (i) − h f (i + 1) )) − (( yi − 1 + yi − 2) (26)
× (hc (i − 1) − h f (i + 1) ) / (hs (i) − h f (i + 1) )) (23)
Where
hf (i) = h(i) l − TTD × Cpw (27)

3.2.4 Low pressure feedwater heater (LPH-1) hc (i) = h(i) l − ETD × Cpw (28)
LPH-1 extracts the steam from intermediate pressure turbine.
A typical intermediate pressure heater is shown in Figure 8.
Similarly, for LPH-1, the subscript i is fixed at 4, 3.2.5 Low pressure feedwater heater (LPH-2)
Energy balance The energy flow through LPH-2 is given in Figure 9.
Energy balance, for ‘i’ = 5:
⎛ 3 ⎞
yi × hs (i) + ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × hf (i + 1) ⎛ 3 ⎞
⎝ k=1 ⎠ yi × hs (i) + ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × hf (i + 1) + yi − 1 × hf (i − 1)
⎝ k= 1 ⎠
⎛ 3 ⎞
⎛ 3 ⎞
= ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × hf (i) + yi × hc (i) (24)
⎝ ⎠ = ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × hf (i) + ( yi + yi − 1) × hc (i) (29)
k=1 ⎝ k= 1 ⎠

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134 127

R. Kumar et al.

⎛⎛ 3 ⎞ ⎞ 3.2.7 Drain cooler

yi = ⎜⎜ ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk⎟⎟ × (hf (i) − hf (i + 1) ) ⎟⎟ ( hs ( i ) − hc ( i ) ) Drain cooler (DC) is used in power plants if extracted steam
⎝⎝ k=1 ⎠ ⎠ upon condensation gets subcooled. The schematic energy flow
+ ( yi − 1 × (hc (i) − hf (i − 1) )/(hs (i) − hc (i) )) (30) diagram of DC is shown in Figure 11.
Energy balance, for ‘i’ = 7:
where

hf (i) = h(i) l − TTD × Cpw (31) 6 ⎛ 3 ⎞

∑ yk × hc (i − 1) + ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × hf (i + 1)
k=4 ⎝ k=1 ⎠
hc (i) = h(i) l − ETD × Cpw (32) ⎛ 3 ⎞ 6
= ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × hf (i) + ∑ yk × hc (i) (38)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

⎝ k=1 ⎠ k=4

3.2.6 Low pressure feedwater heater (LPH-3)

The schematic energy flow diagram of LPH-3 is shown in ⎛ 3 ⎞
Figure 10. ⎜⎜ (1 + yz ) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × (hf (i) − hf (i + 1) )
⎝ ⎠
1
Energy balance, for ‘i’ = 6: k=1
6
5 ⎛ 3 ⎞ = ∑ yk × (hc (i − 1) − hc (i) ) (39)
yi × hs (i) + ∑yk × hc (i − 1) + ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk⎟⎟ × hf (i + 1) k=4
k=4 ⎝ k=1 ⎠
⎛ 3 ⎞ 6
= ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk⎟⎟ × hf (i) + ∑ yk × hc (i) (33)
⎝ k=1 ⎠ k=4
⎛ 6 ⎛ 3 ⎞⎞
hf (i) = ⎜⎜ ∑ yk × (hc (i − 1) − hc (i) ) ⎜⎜ (1 + yz ) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝ k= 4 ⎝ ⎠⎠
1
k= 1
⎛ 3 ⎞ + h f ( i + 1) (40)
yi × (hs (i ) − hc (i ) ) = ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × (h f (i ) − h f (i + 1) )
⎝ k=1 ⎠
5
+ ∑ yk × (hc (i ) − hc (i − 1) ) (34)
k=4
3 3
((1+yz1) – ∑ yk), hf(i) ((1+yz1) – ∑ yk), hf(i+1)
⎛⎛ 3 ⎞ ⎞ k=1 k=1
yi = ⎜⎜ ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × (h f (i ) − h f (i + 1) )/(hs (i ) − hc (i ) ) ⎟⎟
⎝⎝ k=1 ⎠ ⎠
⎛ 5 ⎞
+ ⎜⎜ ∑ yk × (hc (i ) − hc (i − 1) )/(hs (i ) − hc (i ) ) ⎟⎟ (35)
⎝ k=4 ⎠
6
6
∑ yk , hc(i–1) ∑ yk , hc(i)
where k=4
k=4

hf (i) = h(i) l − TTD × Cpw (36) Figure 11. Energy balance diagram for DC.

hc (i) = h(i) l − ETD × Cpw (37)

6
yi = ∑ yCk , hs(i)
k=1
yi , hs(i)
6 3
3 3 yi = ∑ yCk , hs(i) ((1+yz1) – ∑ yk), hf(i+1)
((1+yz1) – ∑ yk),hf(i+1) ((1+yz1) – ∑ yk), hf(i+1) k=1 k=1
k=1 k=1

5
6 6
∑ yk , hc(i–1) ∑ yk , hc(i) ∑ yCk , hc(i)
k=4
k=4 k=1

Figure 10. Energy balance diagram for LPH-3. Figure 12. Energy balance diagram for GSC.

128 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134

 A simulation model for thermal performance prediction

y29
y1a

9 9a 7 yd1
yd2
COND Water in
yB1 yB2 yC2
Water out yC1
HPT

10 10b JNCT
10a

y1c y1b y1
CP
11 y1d
R

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

Figure 13. Flow diagram of condenser. yi,hs(i)

1, hf(i) 1, hf(i+1)

Table 7. Mass and energy balance of condenser.

Mass balance Energy balance
yi, hc(i)
y9 + y9a = y10 (44) y9 h9 + y9a h9a = y10 h10 (48)
4 6
4 6 y9 h9 + (∑k = 1 h Bk yBk − ∑k = 5 h Bk yBk ) Figure 14. High pressure turbine mass balance.
y9a = ∑k = 1 yBk − ∑k = 5 yBk (45) (49)
= y10 h10
y10a = y10 + y10b (46) y10a h10a = y10 h10 + y10b h10b (50)
y11 = y10a (47)

yd3 y29
3.2.8 Gland steam condenser
yB4
The gland steam condenser (GSC) is utilized as a low pressure yB3 yC3 yC4
noncontact feedwater heater with the discharge drainage flow- IPT
ing to the condenser via the condenser flash box. The gland
condenser is fitted with a gland condenser extraction fan to y1d y2 y3
remove any air that accumulates in the top of the gland stream RH
condenser after the steam air mixture is separated. The energy yi,hs(i) yi,hs(i) 3
flow through gland steam condenser is shown in Figure 12. ((1+yz1) – ∑ yk
Energy balance, for ‘i’ = 8: K k=1
1, hf(i) 1, hf(i+1) BFP 1+yz1, hf(i)

⎛ 3 ⎞
yi × hs ( i) + ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × hf (i + 1)
⎝ k=1 ⎠ yi + yi–1 , hc(i) yi–1 + yi–2 , hc(i–1)
yi–1 , hc(i–1)
⎛ 3 ⎞
= ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × hf (i) + yi × hc (i) (41) Figure 15. Intermediate pressure turbine mass balance.
⎝ k=1 ⎠

6 ⎛ 3 ⎞
∑ yCk × hs (i) + ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × hf (i + 1) 3.3 Condenser
k=1 ⎝ k=1 ⎠ From the flow diagram (see Figure 13), the mass and energy
⎛ 3 ⎞ balance of condenser and its junction is given as (see Table 7).
= ⎜⎜ (1 + yz1) − ∑ yk ⎟⎟ × hf (i) + ∑k = 1 yCk × hc (i)
6
(42)
⎝ k=1 ⎠

⎛ 6 3 ⎞⎞ Qcondenser = x w cpw (Tw,out − Tw,in) = y9 (h 9 − h10) (51)

hf (i) = ⎜⎜ ∑ yCk × (hs (i) − hc (i) ) / ((1 + yz1) − ∑ yk⎟⎟ ⎟⎟ + hf (i+1)
⎝ k=1 k=1 ⎠ ⎠ The condition of condensed water is assumed to be
(43) saturated.

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134 129

R. Kumar et al.

Table 8. Energy, mass balance and work output of turbines.

Turbine Mass balance Turbine work output

High pressure turbine 2 2 2 WT1 = y1a (h1a − h1b ) (58)

y1a = ∑k = 1 yBk + ∑k = 1 yCk + ∑k = 1 ydk + y1b (52)
(HPT)
y1b = y1c + y1d (53)
Intermediate pressure 3 4 4 WT 2 = y1e (hs (1e) − hs (2) ) + ( y1e − y2)(hs (2) − hs (3) ) (59)
y1e = ∑i = 2 yi + y32 + ∑k = 3 yBk + ∑k = 3 yCk + yd3 (54)
turbine (IPT) 3 4 4
y32 = y1e − (∑i = 2 yi + ∑k = 3 yBk + ∑k = 3 yCk ) − yd3 (55) 5
WT 3 = y29 (h29 − hs (4) ) + ( y29 − y4)(hs (4) − hs (5) ) + ( y29 − ∑i = 4 xi )
Low pressure turbine 7 6 6 (60)
y29 = ∑i = 4 yk + ∑k = 5 yBk − ∑k = 5 yCk + y9 (56) 6 7
(hs (5) − hs (6) ) + ( y29 − ∑i = 4 yi )(hs (6) − hs (7) ) + ( y32 − ∑i = 4 yi )(h7 − h9 )
(LPT)
7 6 6
y9 = y29 − ∑i = 4 yk + ∑k = 5 yBk − ∑k = 5 yCk (57)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

hg = –8.29173E–10x6 + 5.45438E–07x5 – .37544E–04x4 + 1.66089E–02x3 – 9.87418E–
01x2+ 2.53297E+01x + 2.60544E+03
3000 R2 = 9.12751E–01

2500 hg hf
Poly (hf)
Enthalpy (kJ/kg)

2000 Poly (hg)

1500

1000
hf = –1.40069E–09x6 + 9.91868E–07x5 –2.68248E–04x4 + 3.47195E–02x3 -
500 2.21241E+00x2 + 6.91350E+01x + 2.44324E+02
R2 = 9.68213E–01
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pressure (bar)

Figure 16. Pressure-enthalpy relation of saturated water.

10
sg = 7.371p–0.04
R2 = 0.999
8
Enropy, sug(kJ/kg-K)

6 sg sf
Log(sg) Power (sf)
4

sf = 0.257ln(p) + 1.269
2 R2 = 0.996

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Pressure (bar)
–2

Figure 17. Pressure-entropy diagram.

130 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134

 A simulation model for thermal performance prediction

3.4 Steam turbine
A steam turbine is one module that extracts thermal energy
from pressurized steam, converts it into useful mechanical work
and thus, it is one link in the chain of energy conversions with
the aim of generating electrical energy. Steam turbine is con-
densing, tandem compounded, horizontal, reheat type, single
shaft machine. It has got separate high pressure, intermediate
and low-pressure parts. Mass balance of HPT and IPT are
shown (see Figures 14 and 15). Energy, mass balance and work
output of turbines are shown in Table 8. The notation of sub-
scripts Bk, Ck, dk 1b, 1c and 1d represents the various states in
entropy in the range of 5–11.6 (kJ/kg K) with coefficient of
determination of 0.9198 and with percentage error (average) of
3.0258 and RMS error of 0.1888. The values of constants are
listed in Table 9. Thermodynamic properties of various points
for 250 MW power cycle at design conditions are also tabulated
for reference (see Table A1 in Appendix).
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This proposed simulation model is based on certain assump-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

tions for a 250 MW capacity CFPP. Empirical correlation has
Figures 14 and 15.
been modeled using design data of the plant. The validation of
the simulation model can be compared with the result obtained
from plant in operating conditions. Also, an attempt has been
made to keep data identical for the plant thermal performance
3.5 Overall thermal performance of plant analysis. In simulation model, parameters may vary around a
Coal consumption rate is given as

mcoal = muw ( y1a (h1a − h28) + x1c (h1d − h1c )) / (ηb × Coal GCV) 90

(61)
80
Plant efficiency can be evaluated in terms of plant capacity Predicted plant efficiency
(MW) as 70
Efficiency (%)

Predicted steam generator

ηplant = 1000 × MW/ (mcoal × Coal GCV) (62) 60 efficiency

Here, properties modeling of working substance are given as Steam generator operational
50 efficiency
shown in Figures 16 and 17.
The enthalpy of saturated water has been obtained from 40
curve fit to the thermodynamic data originally by Keenan and
Keyes steam tables [24] in the following form and graphical 30
presentation is given in Figure 16. 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Coal calorific value (kJ/kg)
hu = −1.40069 10 × 10−09 p 6 + 9.91868 10 × 10−07p 5 − 2.68248 10
× 10−04 p 4 + 3.47195 10 × 10−02 p 3 − 2.21241 × p 2 Figure 18. Coal specimen calorific value vs. efficiency.
+ 69.1350 × p1 + 244.324 (63)

Enthalpy of water vapor in superheated conditions is

obtained as given below 200
Operating coal consumption rate
(Ton/hr)
h = a1 + a2 p0.25 + a3 s2 + a4 ps1.5 + a5 p 2s + a6 ps2.25
180
Coal consumption rate (T/hr)

2.05
+ a7p s 1.05 (64) Predicted coal consumption rate
(Ton/hr)
In the same manner, entropy in terms of pressure of satu-
160
rated water is graphically presented in Figure 17. The equa-
tion (64) is valid in the pressure range of 0.1–175 bar and
140
Table 9. Values of constants as given in equation (64).
Constants Values
120
a1 −1874.611439
a2 1660.483139
a3 48.58941216
100
a4 −8.488375390
130 155 180 205 230 255 280
a5 0.4763079920
a6 1.369549685 Plant load (MWe)
a7 −0.3151976165
Figure 19. Plant load vs. coal consumption rate.

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134 131

R. Kumar et al.

800 generator and overall plant efficiency is shown in Figure 18.

Predicted steam flow
775 Calorific value directly affects steam generator efficiency and
rate(Ton/hr)
750 thereby overall plant efficiency. SG and overall plant efficiency
725 is observed to be 86.9% and 38.8%, respectively, for coal
Operating steam flow
700 specimen-1 with coal calorific value 4530 kJ/kg. In the same
Steam flow rate (Ton/hr)

rate(Ton/hr)
675
manner, for coal specimen-2 with coal calorific value 3960 kJ/
650
625
kg, SG and overall plant efficiency is evaluated to be 86% and
600 38.5%, respectively. Coal specimen-3 with calorific value
575 3520 kJ/kg achieves 85.6% and 38.2% SG and plant efficiency
550 respectively. The calorific value of coal specimen-4 is much
525 lower as compared to other three coal specimen and thereby

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

500 results in lower SG and plant efficiency, which is found to be
475 81.6% and 36.4%, respectively obtained through simulation
450 model. SG efficiency has been also validated by comparing it
425 with SG efficiency in real operating condition of plant. The effi-
400
130 155 180 205 230 255 280
ciency of SG in plant real operating condition is found to be
Plant load (MWe)
85% which seems to be a good agreement as achieved through
simulation model for a load of 250 MW. Thus, a maximum
Figure 20. Plant load vs. steam mass flow. deviation of 0.77% is observed for SG efficiency between pre-
dicted and operating data for CFPP. It is clear from Figure 18,
that better coal calorific is required to achieve higher efficiency
both for steam generator as well as overall plant.
39
A comparison of predicted and operating mass flow rate of
steam through steam generator has been represented at various
38
load conditions in plant (see Figure 20). There seems to be an
increase in predicted mass flow rate of steam from 456 to 761
37
Overall Efficiency (%)

36
35
34
33
32
130 155 180
Plant load (MWe)
Figure 21. Plant load vs. overall plant efficiency.
certain baseline condition. The results obtained from simulation
model and for plant in operational mode with the varying load
conditions are evaluated. The overall plant efficiency, steam
mass flow rate and coal consumption in plant have been
achieved through the model. The comparison has been done
for validation point of view as indicated through Figures 18–21.
There is a crucial role of coal used in CFPP and its calorific
value plays an important role in boiler combustion efficiency.
Four coal specimen data have been collected from plant and the
role of their calorific value has been analyzed through simula-
tion model. In the present study, coal specimen 3 is taken as a
fuel for steam generator in plant. The role of coal calorific value
from various coal specimens in the evaluation of steam
(ton/h) as the load varies from 150 to 260 MW, which shows a
variation of 67%. It can be also seen, a maximum deviation of
only 3% is observed between predicted and operating mass flow
rate of steam for a load of 252 MW for a 250 MW capacity
plant.
Operating pant efficiency (%)
Overall efficiency analysis of any plant is the major concern
for researchers. A number of factors influences plant efficiency
Predicted palnt efficiency (%)
in a direct manner. Coal calorific value is found to be one of
these as discussed in this article also. Plant efficiency analysis is
also successfully validated in the present work. It is clear from
205 230 255 280 the Figure 21, at a load of 150 MW, plant efficiency achieved is
35.8% for selected coal specimen. As the plant load increases
from 150 MW to 260 MW, plant efficiency increases from
35.8% to 38.3%, respectively which represents a maximum vari-
ation of 6.98%. In Figure 21, a comparison of predicted and
operational overall plant efficiency at various load conditions is
shown for selected coal specimen-3. As operating data of plant
at 250 MW load was not available at the time of visit, so overall
plant is compared with plant operational at 252 MW instead of
250 MW. It is clear from the Figure 21, that a maximum devi-
ation of only 0.6% is observed between predicted and operating
plant efficiency for a load of 252 MW which shows a good
agreement.
5 CONCLUSIONS
A simulation model of a 250 MW capacity subcritical CFPP for
the prediction of steam flow rate, coal consumption and overall

132 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134

 A simulation model for thermal performance prediction

plant efficiency is proposed in the present study. Thermal per- s Entropy (kJ/kg K)
formance analysis of plant using a semi-empirical model has Ta Ambient temperature (°C)
been done. The integrated model of plant with the component T.f Flue gas temperature (°C)
wise modeling for various heaters, turbine, boiler and conden- W. P Power consumed by pumps (kW)
ser was done. Self-fitted various correlations have been also WT Turbine work output (kW)
compared with Keenan and Keyes steam tables. Steam gener- yi Fractional mass flow rate of steam at ‘ith’ state
ator efficiency is evaluated using indirect method of losses. To JNCT Junction of steam and condensate collection
achieve better efficiency, coal with higher calorific value is pre-
ferred. In this study, coal specimen-4 shows better steam generator
efficiency as well as overall plant efficiency as compared to other REFERENCES
specimen. During plant visit, the operational data of plant was

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

available for coal specimen with calorific value of 3520 kJ/kg. So, [1] Veselov F, Makarova A, Khorshev A. Impact of restriction measures for
greenhouse gas emission on development of electric power industry in
coal specimen-3 has been chosen as a primary steam generator
Russia. Int J Low Carbon Technol 2010;5:303–10.
fuel. In steam generator, mass flow rate of steam improves sharply
[2] Kler AM, Tyurina EA, Mednikov AS, et al. The combined technology for
as the plant load increases. It is also concluded that, increase in production of synthetic fuels and electricity with reduced CO2 emissions.
plant load also increases the coal consumption for a fixed capacity Int J Low Carbon Technol 2010;5:264–72.
CFPP for a common coal specimen used in plant. It is interesting [3] Naseri A, Bidi M, Ahmadi MH, et al. Exergy analysis of a hydrogen and
to see the effect of load variation on overall plant efficiency. It is water production process by a solar-driven transcritical CO2 power cycle
concluded that there is small variation in plant efficiency with the with Stirling engine. J Clean Prod 2017;158:165–81.
increase in load. The results obtained through the simulation [4] Mohammadi A, Ahmadi MH, Bidi M, et al. Exergy analysis of a com-
model have been validated by comparing with operational plant of bined cooling, heating and power system integrated with wind turbine
250 MW capacity which shows a goods agreement. and compressed air energy storage system. Energy Convers Manag 2016;
131:69–78.
[5] Erdem HH, Akkaya AV, Cetin B, et al. Comparative energetic and exer-
getic performance analyses for coal-fired thermal power plants in Turkey.
GREEK SYMBOLS Int J Therm Sci 2009;48:2179–86.
[6] Seyyedvalilu MH, Mohammadkhani F. A parametric study on exergy and
ηplant Overall plant efficiency exergoeconomic analysis of a diesel engine based combined heat and power
ηb Steam generator efficiency system. Int J Eng 2015;28:608–17.
ηP Pump efficiency [7] Espatolero S, Romeo LM. Efficiency improvement strategies for the feed-
water heaters network designing in supercritical coal-fired power plants.
Appl Therm Eng 2014;73:447–58.
NOMENCLATURE [8] Habib MA, Said SAM. Thermodynamic optimization of reheat regenerative
thermal-power plants. Appl Energy 1999;63:17–34.
BP Boiler feed pump [9] Hussaini IS, Zubair SM, Antar MA. Area allocation in multi-zone feed-
Ca Unburnt carbon content in ash water heaters. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48:568–75.
CP Condensate extraction pump [10] Mitra SK. Modeling of a coal-fired natural circulation boiler. J Energy
Cp Specific heat of superheated steam in Resour Technol Trans ASME 2016;129:159–67.
[11] Askarova A, Bolegenova S, Maximov V, et al. Numerical modeling of pul-
kCal/kg °C
verized coal combustion at thermal power plant boilers. J Therm Sci 2015;
Coal GCV Coal gross calorific value (kJ/kg of coal)
24:275–82.
COND Condenser [12] Belo S, Tomanovi I, Beljanski V, et al. Numerical prediction of processes
JNCT Condensate collector for clean and ef fi cient combustion of pulverized coal in power plants.
HPT High pressure turbine Appl Therm Eng 2016;74:102–10.
HPH High pressure feedwater heater [13] Kim T, Choi S, Hyun J. Performance prediction of a circulating fluidized
H Enthalpy (kJ kg−1) bed boiler by heat exchangers block simulation at varying load conditions.
IPT Intermediate pressure turbine Proc Inst Mech Eng A J Power Energy 2013;228:17–32.
DR Dearator [14] Wienese A. Boilers, boiler fuel and boiler efficiency. Proc S Afr Sug Technol
DC Drain cooler Ass 2001:275–81.
. [15] Liu XJ, Kong XB, Hou GL, et al. Modeling of a 1000 MW power plant ultra
m. f Coal consumption rate (ton/hr)
super-critical boiler system using fuzzy-neural network methods. Energy
muw Unit mass flow rate of water (ton/hr)
Convers Manag 2013;65:518–27.
P Pressure in bar
[16] Chaibakhsh A, Ghaffari A. Simulation modelling practice and theory steam
LPH Low pressure feedwater heater turbine model. Simul Model Pract Theory 2008;16:1145–62.
LPT Low pressure turbine

International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134 133

R. Kumar et al.

[17] Taylor P, Chen L, Zhang W, et al. Thermodynamic optimization for APPENDIX

an open cycle of an externally fired micro gas turbine ( EFmGT).
Part 1: thermodynamic modelling. Int J Sustain Energy 2011;30:
246–56. Table A1. Designed thermodynamic properties of points in 250 MW
[18] Chen L, Wang W, Sun F. Thermodynamic optimization of a triple-shaft power cycle (refer to Figure 1)
open intercooled-recuperated gas turbine cycle. Part 1: description and
Stream m (kg/s) t (°C) p (bar) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg K)
modeling. Int J Low Carbon Technol 2013;11:1–7.
[19] Mohammadi A, Ahmadi AMH, Bidi M, et al. Exergy and economic ana- 1a 204.85 537 151.98 3418.10 6.47
lyses of replacing feedwater heaters in a Rankine cycle with parabolic 1b 203.40 344.2 40.13 3081.48 6.55
trough collectors. Energy Rep 2018;4:243–51. 1c 184.09 344.2 40.13 3081.48 6.55
[20] Noroozian A, Mohammadi A, Bidi M, et al. Energy, exergy and economic 1d 184.09 537 36.12 3535.33 7.24
1 19.30 344.2 40.13 3081.48 6.55
analyses of a novel system to recover waste heat and water in steam power

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijlct/article-abstract/14/2/122/5316194 by 81695661, OUP on 29 April 2019

2 11.66 423.4 16.78 3305.05 7.28
plants. Energy Convers Manag 2017;144:351–60.
3 10.94 300.8 6.76 3062.22 7.31
[21] P. C. and R. Association. Draft Energy Audit Report- Panipat Thermal
4 7.84 188.1 2.36 2845.34 7.37
Power Station. Panipat, 2017. 5 5.98 103.3 0.94 2684.15 7.41
[22] Kumar R, Sharma AK, Tewari PC. Thermal performance and economic 6 6.12 98 0.39 2581.16 7.80
analysis of 210 MWe coal-fired power plant. J Thermodyn 2014;1:1–11. 7 0.71 59.7 0.20 249.95 0.82
[23] Kumar R. Thermodynamic modeling and validation of a 210-MW capacity 8 0.10 – – 3114.97 –
coal-fired power plant. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Mech Eng 2016;40:233–42. 9 141.38 46.7 0.10 2409.92 7.58
[24] Keenan JH, Keyes FG, Hill PG, et al. Steam Tables: Thermodynamic 10a 162.94 46.3 0.10 193.84 0.65
Properties of Water Including Vapor, Liquid, and Solid Phases. State of 10b 20.77 – – – –
11 162.94 46.5 19.63 196.36 0.65
Michigan, 1969.
12 162.94 47.1 19.63 198.03 0.66
13 0.10 99.7 1.00 417.84 1.30
14 162.94 49.7 19.63 208.92 0.69
15 19.95 52.2 0.13 218.55 0.73
16 162.94 70.4 19.63 295.16 0.95
17 13.82 75.3 0.39 315.68 1.02
18 19.95 73.3 0.35 306.89 0.99
19 162.94 92.2 19.63 386.86 1.21
20 7.83 97.2 0.91 407.37 1.27
21 162.94 119.9 19.63 504.09 1.52
22 204.85 159 6.23 671.56 1.93
23 30.96 167.2 7.39 707.56 2.01
24 204.85 162.3 192.51 695.84 1.94
25 204.85 162.3 192.51 695.84 1.94
26 204.85 200.1 192.51 859.55 2.30
27 19.30 204.8 17.16 875.04 2.37
28 204.85 246 192.51 1067.63 2.72
29 204.85 300.8 6.76 3062.22 7.31
Waterin 10290.55 33 1.01 138.37 0.47
Waterout 10290.55 41.3 1.01 173.08 0.59

134 International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies 2019, 14, 122–134

Copyright © 2019 Oxford University Press. Copyright of International Journal of Low
Carbon Technologies is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.